Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nswdpe.intersearch.com.au/nswdpejspui/handle/1/15374
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWilson, Hayley-
dc.contributor.authorJenkins, Leigh-
dc.contributor.authorHarden, Steve-
dc.contributor.authorMoore, Kevin-
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-30T00:00:46Z-
dc.date.available2024-09-30T00:00:46Z-
dc.date.issued2022-
dc.identifier.issn2208-8199-
dc.identifier.urihttps://nswdpe.intersearch.com.au/nswdpejspui/handle/1/15374-
dc.description.abstractKey findings • Variety choice remains a critical management tool under high disease pressure: gross margin (GM) loss of $300/ha in Kyabra[PBR] compared with gains of up to $1000 in PBA Seamer[PBR] when no fungicide was applied. • Preventative fungicide applications before seedling infection have the greatest effect in reducing disease severity. • Salvage fungicide applications on seedling infections in susceptible varieties is insufficient in preventing yield loss • Applying fungicide during early podding might reduce yield loss if ascochyta blight (AB) is present and a wet-season finish is predicted.en
dc.publisherDepartment of Primary Industriesen
dc.subject2020, 2021, ascochyta, chickpea, chlorothalonil, disease severity, foliar spray, fungicide, gross margins, inoculum, light clay, resistance, seed treatment, Tamworth, Trangie, variety, yielden
dc.titleThe effect of ascochyta blight on chickpea yields and economics when infection occurs at 3 different growth stagesen
dc.title.alternativeNorthern NSW research results 2022en
dc.typeBook chapteren
Appears in Collections:DPI Agriculture - Southern and Northern Research Results [2011-present]

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat  
NRR22-2-wilson jenkins ascochyta chickpea-+.pdf240.51 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing